Chevy Bolt EV Forum banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
741 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Full article linked below. Let's hope so...

"General Motors is “on track” to meet its goal of having 20 battery-electric vehicles in production by 2023, a senior executive said, despite the fact that it hasn’t introduced a new BEV since launching the Chevrolet Bolt EV three years ago. Expect to see a flood of new offerings that will follow the debut of Cadillac’s first all-electric model a little more than a year from now, hinted Rick Spina, GM’s vice president of electric and autonomous vehicle programs, in a conversation with TheDetroitBureau.com."

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,166 Posts
I think all the American legacy makers are holding back on any big expenditures until they see which way the political winds will blow in the US.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,564 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,166 Posts
Electric Corvette SUV for one? There was also talk of making Cadillac brand all electric.
One advantage of a Corvette SUV is that you wouldn't have to make it any bigger, just make practical use of all the wasted space. :ROFLMAO:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
I think all the American legacy makers are holding back on any big expenditures until they see which way the political winds will blow in the US.
Good luck with that. The variability of political winds has increased as much as the real winds have due to climate change. It seems clear now you have to make long term plans as immune to shifts in political wind as possible because the only known is that they WILL continually change, and drastically at times.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
Good luck with that. The variability of political winds has increased as much as the real winds have due to climate change. It seems clear now you have to make long term plans as immune to shifts in political wind as possible because the only known is that they WILL continually change, and drastically at times.
The irony, of course, is that climate change is not political--at least in most of the world. The United States is a noted exception.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,189 Posts
Climate change never was political, and there's next to no link. Climate has been changing since there has been life somewhere in the universe. Warming has probably accelerated due to fossil fuel consumption, which is directly tied to economics. The more accurate statement would be that increasing health and economic wellbeing on earth has accelerated global warming.

Politics has hardly changed, and the 2 so-called sides are indistinguishable from each other. They consist of people and their associated flaws, and the tribal loyalty inherent in the human condition. The politicians play the games that are successful with the sheeple. None of this is easily fixable since it's encoded deep down at the DNA level.

The only way politics will make a significant difference in global warming is if the world adopted dictators that hold a Bernie Sanders philosophy; that we should be ruled by elites that impose a heavily socialistic scheme, which would achieve the goal of reducing consumption, because consumption goes down when everyone is poor. CO2 and wealth go hand in hand. Almost nobody is going to vote to be poorer.

That said, advancing technology is most likely to solve our climate change problem, both in reducing CO2 emissions, and in mitigating the negative consequences of it. That has practically nothing to do with politics too. It tends to advance on it's own, ironically supported by those high CO2 emitting wealthy economies.

As an aside, I wish the impeachment charade would go on another decade to distract the politicians from their usual job of eroding liberty and growing government authority.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,020 Posts
Climate change never was political, and there's next to no link. Climate has been changing since there has been life somewhere in the universe. Warming has probably accelerated due to fossil fuel consumption, which is directly tied to economics. The more accurate statement would be that increasing health and economic wellbeing on earth has accelerated global warming.
The definition of climate change in the context we are discussing is the global warming and climate impacts by emissions produced from the 20th century by humans. Relating it to past climate change is arguments made by climate change deniers to say climate always changes and takes away the human responsibility. In the scientific community there are two discussions being had on climate change. The first is we can fix it through renewable energy and getting away from fossil fuels. The second is that it is probably too late and the climate change has already been set into motion and can't be stopped. I am leaning towards the second opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,189 Posts
... then there's my 3rd perspective, that there is an element humans are responsible for (the accelerated warming part), and some reasonable amount of action that should be taken to reduce further CO2 emissions, along with adapting to the warming. There's some middle way between "do everything" and "do nothing" that properly balances the need to advance technology and mitigate the effects of change through prosperity (resource consumption), and the need to conserve scarce resources for the future and reduce the amount of CO2 emissions.

In the medium term I expect we'll build out more nuclear electricity plants and continue to transition toward electrification of many things including ground transportation.

Longer term, I see the decline in the birthrates accelerating due to many factors (increasing education, increasing prosperity, delayed age of reproduction, VR porn...), and eventually a declining human population placing less pressure on scarce resources. The political friction will have moved on to other divisive issues, where one group says the problem is the most important thing in the world, and the other group saying it isn't a problem at all, with the truth found somewhere between those extremes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
241 Posts
Climate change never was political...Politics has hardly changed, and the 2 so-called sides are indistinguishable from each other...
Or, as Will Rogers said a century ago, "The trouble with the Left Wing and the Right Wing is that they are flapping off the same bird."

The only way politics will make a significant difference in global warming is if the world adopted dictators that hold a Bernie Sanders philosophy; that we should be ruled by elites that impose a heavily socialistic scheme...
As an emphasis of this point, the two regions of the world forcing auto manufacturers into the production of EVs, the EU and China, are because of heavy-handed government mandates. Absent those socialistic schemes, no EV adoption.[/QUOTE]

As an aside, I wish the impeachment charade would go on another decade to distract the politicians from their usual job of eroding liberty and growing government authority.
The conundrum in this last comment is addressed in my first two responses.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,649 Posts
Aaaaaand we take a hard turn into the outfield with a massive thread jacking ....

Mods : can you create two generic threads in the "this isn't about EV vehicles" portion of the site, one for "soapbox for political topics", and the other for "climate change"? That will make it much, much easier to find these two topics of discussion in the future, instead of having to wade through every thread on the site (since these two topics pop up all the time in threads, no matter what the original topic).

Thx.

Oh, I almost forgot ; HITLER alert !!!
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top